You know I have raised this issue many times and NEVER have I had a Pro-Lifer actually do or say anything that would be constituted as being PRO-LIFE. You are right. They would rather see the deaths of untold numbers of Human Fetuses rather than deal with the issue in the only possible and viable way. AboveAlpha
Its not worth my time, but I will repeat that your "challenge" is mis-stated. The issue is not forcing a person to keep someone else alive, the issue is preventing a person from murdering another person. But everyone who has been on this forum any length of time has gone around the merry go round with you and knows your position. You want a free hand to kill babies for convenience.
Is this an entirely serious question? Never mind. I shall proceed upon the assumption that it is (however fatuous that assumption may be). So let me take a crack at it, please. If (a) the continued existence of Person A is dependent upon Person B; and (b) Person B is responsible for the very creation of Person A; then it naturally follows Person B should be held legally responsible. If that were not the case, what might be the moral underpinnings for any laws concerning child neglect (or, for that matter, even infanticide)? Seriously.
Surely you understood the implication in the question was "OTHER THAN in pregnancy." There are untold millions of cases where women have been forced to use their bodies to sustain lives in pregnancy. The case you cited just happens to be probably the most incredibly egregious one.
All you are saying is that it is acceptable to force women to use their bodies to sustain the lives of "others." Abortion allows women the ability to NOT create a person. Try again--a case other than pregnancy that applies to the question.
How can you not see that criminalizing abortion forces a woman to sustain a life? It certainly IS the issue, because... that is what you are required to prove. Obviously you are frustrated by your inability to answer the question.
Not worth your time, in other words you haven't got a reasonable answer .. ok I can go with that. Murder .. really, just another word thrown out to try to project some sort of emotional guilt. Such a shame that pro-lifers need to resort to lying. what utter BS, for one I have never killed a baby, for another no 'babies' have ever been killed in abortion .. your attempt at emotional projection is noted.
It is an entirely serious question, why would it not be? Not in the slightest, a 1 year old meets both of the things stated above and yet neither parents can be legally forced to provide a single drop of blood to continue their existence. Child neglect and/or infanticide are not a person being forced to use their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another.
Was she taken of life support .. oh yes she was, so your example fails. - - - Updated - - - The example is a fail anyway as the courts ruled that the life support should be switched off anyway ergo the 2 months that it took to come to this decision were legally wrong.
A few people here have a belief that the fetus is not a human being until it is born, those people see abortion as nothing more than a simple medical procedure. They have made their shallow arguements many times, they are not interested in discussion of the moral or factual aspects or any understanding of the opposing position, nothing presented will open their minds to any degree. This OP is nothing new and is literally a repeat by the same person.
There is no consensus in science or theology regarding the point one becomes a human being. If you believe it is at conception, and you want abortion criminalized on that basis, you need to provide proof. A shallow argument is one you can't back up. Can you?
Again misrepresentation is all you have. So shallow that you cannot refute them morals are purely subjective, so why should your subjective morals be of any more relevance than someone elses? and what factual aspects do you have, because so far all I have seen is opinion not based upon fact. ditto to you Really, then you should have problem linking to where a thread has been started asking the same question .. please do so.
Read David Hume and discover for yourself. There is a difference between what ought to be and what is. Morals are based on subjective value, for example "murder is wrong" is equivalent to saying you ought not murder. That ought logically requires both a justifying purpose (say maintaining or increasing general human well-being) and a method (or heuristic) for achieving that purpose such as dont murder. It is more easily answered by separately asking is the justifying purpose objective and the method of achieving that purpose logical? Applying this method to the example, I would say that its purpose (say maintaining or increasing human well-being) is not objective and its heuristic, if taken as an unbreakable rule, is illogical (assuming murder is defined as illegally killing someone). Maintaining or increasing general human well-being is a subjective purpose in the sense that it is the true overriding purpose of only some people. There are people who care only about their own well-being and are puzzled by assertions they should care about other people (except as doing so aids self interest). Further, the heuristic dont murder seems to me illogical as an absolute rule because of the potential for rare cases where murder will increase general human well-being. (Though I am sure that dont murder can almost always be expected to increase general human well-being and so it is an excellent cultural moral standard as a fallible heuristic.) I dont see that justifying purposes of morality can, ultimately, be objectively established by logic. Logic and facts, consistent with what Hume said about is and ought and based on most philosophical reasoning to date, can only inform us as to how we might achieve a purpose, not what that purpose objectively ought to be.
Theft is illegal because it disrupts order in society, not because it is immoral. It is immoral as well, IMO, but the basis for law in a secular government is maintaining order in society.
You do what most blind ideologues (like fugazi) do, you try to incorrectly state your opponents position and then ask that it be justified. Your attitude is why certain people do not get responses. The earliest a baby was born and survived was 21 weeks 5 days. That is clear proof that it is a human being at 21 weeks and it marks the maximum boundary. At what time before 21 weeks it becomes a human is open to debate. And if you follow the typical abortionist list of talking points, you will make some inane arguement that at 21 weeks the baby requires extreme medical care. Many people of all ages require extreme medical care, and are not denied their humanity because of it (at least, not yet).
How does theft disrupt order in society? I believe that theft does disrupt order in society, but i'm curious as to why you believe it does.
I didn't state your position at all. I said "IF you believe..." Another insult, but I'm the one with attitude? It is only proof that particular baby was a human being at birth. No other fetus has survived at that point, even with all manner of life support procedures. And that is factual. Because they are born.
You stated a poor position and challenged me to defend it. After enough of these OP's from certain people, when other people defend the OP they tend to get tarnished with the same brush. Maybe I jumped to the wrong conclusion here. Then what percentage have to survive before it sets the "human" threshold? The formal medical threshold for general viability is 24 weeks - is it a human at 24 weeks (39% chance of survival)? With the proper facilities, the formal threshold drops to 23 weeks - is it a human then? Does race set your threshold? Preterm survival rates for blacks are much lower than for whites, do black babies have to wait longer to become human? As you begin to see, survival rates are a terrible metric to define human status. And the safest approach is to take the earliest proven date - 21 weeks. That is a circular and self-serving arguement.
IF you believed it. Your argument is circular and self-serving. In effect, you said born people have a right to life, so the unborn should also. This quote from a pro-life doctor explains why one becomes a human being at birth: A fetus becomes a human being when it is no longer attached to the mother. Theres an important reason for that. The progression of fetal develop goes from an embryo, with zero viability, towards a fully developed fetus, with, hopefully, full viability. Along the way, there is a continuum of viability that depends on development, health, genetics, etc. As an example, at around 24 weeks, a fetus has developed lung surfactant, a significant milestone in development, yet legally, 20 weeks is viable, a contentious point in ethical law. Therefore, viability is anything but a simple matter. Regardless, while viability exists on a continuum, rights are absolutes. A complete, living woman, has absolute rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She does not lay claim to the efforts of others through requiring their sacrifice, nor may others lay claim to her efforts. This is an absolute. A fetus, in a strictly descriptive term, is a parasite, i.e. it exists at the cost of the mother. She may choose to surrender her values, her effort and energy, to mature this fetus and bring it to term and deliver it, or she may choose to discontinue the support. This is abortion. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/01/granting-rights-fetus-cost-mother.html
People need to feel secure in the persons and their possessions or they begin to fight with one another, IOW, disruption of order in society. Now, why do you believe theft disrupts order in society, and to get back on topic, do you understand that abortion does not disrupt order in society?
You have tap danced (ever so carefully) around the fundamental question, i.e. "[W]hat might be the moral underpinnings for any laws concerning child neglect (or, for that matter, even infanticide)," given the assumptions that undergird the abortion-on-demand position? If you would care to answer that all-important question--directly--I shall be happy to respond. And attempt to have a meaningful discussion. But if you would prefer mere boilerplate and talking points to reasoned analysis, well, then it would be quite impossible for us to have a serious discussion...
I believe this post of yours to Fugazi is COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR and does not represent Fugazi's beliefs or ideology in any way, shape or form. On the previous page he and I talked and fully agree that there are many programs that if installed could lower the total number of abortions by over 90%. Fugazi agrees with this and that is not the beliefs of a person who as you state..."You want a free hand to kill babies for convenience."...end quote Battle 3. Why would you post such a thing? The FACTS AND REALITIES are that Abortion will ALWAYS be a needed necessary Medical Procedure as such abortions in the cases when the Mothers Health is at stake or the Fetus has died or the fetus is developing abnormally and a Doctor has determined such a fetus will not survive out of the womb...and other such issues like in the cases of Rape and Incest. The fact is Abortion will NEVER be made illegal in the United States but there are real concrete steps that can be taken to prevent Pregnancy and programs of education about abstinence, birth control, Morning After and Plan B drugs which will not allow a pregnancy to take place. Just to institute such programs which FUGAZI AGREES WITH....would prevent MILLIONS of Abortions from happening. Still...you and others turn a blind eye to reality. AboveAlpha
No, I did address that question. A parent is responsible for the well-being of the children they bring into the world. Abortion is and should be an option for those who don't want to bring children into the world. Or you could just answer the OP question...
